Cited by

(quotation omitted); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 cmt.

Although a district court has broad discretion over sentencing, a district court “can exercise its discretion to depart from the guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” ( quotations and citations omitted); see Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)

One recognized basis for departure is a defendant’s “particular amenability to probation.” -09 (Minn. 2014) (emphasis omitted); see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(7).

d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014).

We afford district courts “great discretion in the imposition of sentences.” (quotation omitted).

Thus, a district court may impose a sentencing departure “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (quotations omitted).

d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

A district court may depart from the guidelines sentence “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present and those circumstances prov ide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (quotations omitted).

If a defendant requests a downward departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” ( 10 (Minn. 1989), and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).

-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

-09 (Minn. 2014) (recognizing “particular amenability to probation” as a basis for downward 5 departure).

(quoting Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a).

Although the district court has great discretion in imposing a criminal sentence, we will reverse if the district court abuses that discretion, meaning that its reasons are “improper or insufficient and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure.” –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).

presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” -09 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

“[Reviewing courts] ‘afford the [district] court great 8 discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , - 08 (Minn. 2014) (footnote omitted) ().

we ensure that the defendant’s amenability to probation distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” (quotation omitted).

presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” - 09 (Minn. 2014).

Second, while case law permits departure s when a defendant is “particularly amenable to probation,” State v. Soto , the memorandum argued that Cantu need only be “amenable to probation” to receive a departure.

A district court may depart from the sentencing guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (emphasis omitted) (quotations and citations omitted); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)

A district court may depart from the guidelines sentence “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, ” “and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (quotations omitted).

lated context of a district court’s reliance on a diagnostic assessment as grounds for a downward dispositional sentencing departure, the Minnesota Supreme Court has said that “the mere fact that [a] person who prepared a report for the district court reached a certain 11 conclusion does not necessarily justify departing from the presumptive disposition under the guidelines.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “‘afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) ().

If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘ mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).

“We afford the trial court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

3 DECISION The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or a range for the sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.” Minn. Sent ’g Guidelines 2.D .1 (2020); (citing this provision of the guidelines).

State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014).